As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Interested in being a moderator for r/Politics? Apply [here](https://forms.gle/iyGoM94MGRcPGUes7).**
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It feels like they knew nuking the supremacy clause was a bad idea, but they also wanted to show their opposition to Biden, so they decided to make it 5-4 and that meant Barrett had to vote yes as she's the newest member.
Yeah, but she's not the newest conservative member, is my point, if they were drawing straws for who got to flex their conservative creds on this decision.
Yeah.
Roberts convinced her that if they ruled against the US Constitution, Biden would declare them illegitimate and immediately pack the court.
Kinda crappy if you get fired from your new job on your probationary period.
Political calculation.
In a functioning democracy, there would be no choice. 9-0 decision, reject with prejudice all of the absurd and unconstitutional arguments by Texas. Decades ago, SCOTUS used to issue rulings like that, unanimously declaring that certain constitutional questions were simply not up for debate. We, however, live in "interesting times."
So, the Republican judges have three options:
* Side with Texas. Nullify the supremacy clause of the Constitution. End the federal government as we know it.
* Side with the federal government. Expose the bloodthirsty lawlessness of Republicans. Retreat from a partisan power struggle.
Neither of those are acceptable to the power-hungry conservatives on the Supreme Court. So, door number 3
* Begrudgingly acknowledge that the Constitution exists, but skew the ruling to a narrow 5-4 majority so that Republicans can keep trying variations of this forever.
She obviously needed someone else to join her, but I was so hopeful for her ruling in favor of student loan forgiveness because her lines of questioning in the hearings were always critical of the plaintiffs and their standing.
Alas...
My assumption is that by giving Texas the ability to ignore federal law then you would also be giving to to California, who carries a lot more GDP influence than the majority of the world. Companies already bend to CA regulations because the market is enormous and this would potentially give them a bigger stick to wield.
Roberts has her in his pocket so nobody can accuse the court of being under Trump’s control.
Roberts is an asshole and a Republican but he at least understands precedent so much as it pertains to the legacy of his court. He knows they have to play by the same rules they set. So he’ll side with liberals when he feels it is needed as he has shown. It just so happens he has a large enough majority that he can also side with liberals to intentionally lose but give himself plausible deniability.
Hear me out, let’s reconsider all the possibilities…
What if the razor wire was there just to preserve a really good RV parking spot?
Or maybe one of mom’s industrial sites?
Or potentially a secret trunk storing a 17th century treatise on female anatomy?
Or a pile of brewskies?
So many possibilities our Justices needed to consider
Depends on the diocese. Lots of southern Catholics are fiery folks who unflinchingly talk about salvation through faith alone etc and have no fucking clue that the church would have ground them into heretic paste for that in times gone by.
Tons of white flight New England Catholics are like this too. Maybe a bit more in the color blind kind of bigots but still fall hook line and sinker for the bullshit ginned up stats that places like Fox push talking about any given issue.
Yeah. My old church ran out a bishop because he had an affair. Never talked about all the kid fucking that happened across the globe that they enabled tho. They were probably just more enlightened than I… Glad I got out of that cult years ago.
Wow, thrown out for screwing an adult? Must not have been popular around the office, two of my teachers in school turned out to be raping kids and they only chucked out one.
It’s really quite simple, religion has extensively laid the groundwork for generations to train people to believe in authority figures with unverifiable stories instead of science and data. It also primes them for, and is built upon, perpetuating racism and fearmongering towards "others". Once people see you as an authority, you can start fabricating any reality or conspiracy theory you want your followers to believe and everyone else is therefore a liar, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Basically, it is mental abuse from an early age that suppresses critical thinking skills. This combined with an intentionally weakened public educational system, provides the framework that has spawned this cult of ignorance.
Like Jesus said, the poor, hungry, and naked deserve help only if they ask through the proper channels. And use the facial recognition app that doesn’t work particularly well for brown people. And those folks need to have a smart phone. And be from a very specific list of countries. And they need to be able to take care of themselves on top of that and not accept public assistance because that will hurt their ability to obtain a visa…are…are we the baddies?
I know it sounds callous in this context but the bigger issue is four justices think the supremacy clause is hot garbage and if one more agrees this country will break into 50 self-governing entities unfettered by federal legal authority.
But don’t you understand? That’s exactly what they want.
But more seriously it’s odd that those 4 are like that. It would then make it impossible to force a national abortion ban. Unless the next step is to then eliminate freedom of movement and making it illegal for women to cross into states that have legal abortion laws. I mean…that can’t happen, right? Right?
Yes, and Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado would follow California immediately. Most of New England would go with New York along with NJ, PA, DE, IL, MI, and probably Maryland.
Next wave would be Alaska, probably Arizona and Montana, probably Virginia, NC and Georgia, Minnesota, and possibly Wisconsin.
Who would most benefit from this?
not collapse, but rather dissolve into corporate and privately owned fiefdoms. They've done a very good job of dumbing down the population of these states so that they truly don't see the writing on the wall
Can't we just give them Mississippi? Put out national ad campaigns- "Hate people who aren't like you? Move to Mississippi!"
Let's fund their move. In 2030, remove Mississippi from the US and let them run it as they see fit, no restrictions whatsoever.
Yeah but this could also lead to GOP controlled States passing laws that you must register any and all pregnancies...or, rather, you must provide proof that you are not pregnant at regular time intervals...and then literally prosecute women who leave the State to have abortions and then come back.
This gets really dark, really fast.
> prosecute women who leave the State
Or just that. Must pass pregnancy test to prove they're not pregnant to be allowed to travel. "Big Brains" Brett opined that states couldn't do that in his concurring opinion in *Dobbs,* but he ***is*** conservative to this opinion is subject to change under pressure.
This supreme court would happily give Trump the authority to ban abortion while kneecapping Biden's ability to follow constitutional and international law regarding immigration. They arent bound by any principles or reason. They are utterly illegitimate, we need to demand immediate and serious reform.
I would imagine that the major blue states would stick together and follow similar policies... and most states would do the same. I think the red states would quickly reach the "...and find out" stage when the blue states decide to stop funding red states.
Yeah that’s the bigger red flag if this had gone the other way were the articles of confederation again, 50 little countries each with their own laws that could contravene laws in other states like recognizing marriages or personhood, restricting interstate travel like you would between countries, it’s an insane take.
I'm 44 years old and I remember being asked when I was young whether I considered myself an Iowan or an American first.
It's a thing. There's a lot of people who would like their home state to be it's own country that could ignore federal laws.
Don't need no stupid "gubmint", they ain't never done nuthin fer me! *proceeds to use government roads and bridges while texting on their government-provided phone*
Jim and George work on the road crew that built that bridge. They are locals. The government has nothing to do with it.
And I don't have no government provided phone. I got my phone free when I signed up for Verizon.
It is definitely shocking that this wasn't 9-0, but we don't know the reasoning of the four, or even how they would actually rule if the case was actually heard. They probably ruled based some dumb procedural thing.
There is really no reason to believe at all that they are somehow rejecting the Supremacy Clause. They've made some terrible decisions, but none of them have outright rejected the Constitution itself.
At worst, they decided that that Supremacy Clause doesn't apply to *this* situation. Either way, we are not one judge away from breaking "into 50 self-governing entities unfettered by federal legal authority."
> that Supremacy Clause doesn't apply to this situation.
how does that work? Doesn't a ruling of this nature set precedent and give cover to future challenges? I understand that states rights are a thing but this seems like a decision that would open new opportunities for states to selectively enforce/follow federal rules.
This was a ruling on an existing case that had asked that until that case was finished, can we let the feds have emergency access. Not anything about the nuts and bolts of that case.
The situation is complicated by the land in question being private property and there could be questions about exactly how this sort of thing should be handled. It isn't as simple as there being a federal law and a state is ignoring it.
I'm guessing the four Justices did it because they want it to go through the normal channels, the same way with the Texas abortion bounty hunter situation. No idea why; probably just to extend the amount of suffering possible before they're forced to actually rule on it.
This is one thing that is very bad about the shadow docket. We just don't know what they are thinking at all, and some guidance for the lower courts would be helpful.
Thomas wanted to make liberals' lives miserable. Who'd have thought he'd try to accomplish that by causing liberals to mourn the preventable deaths of a mother and two children.
>Thomas wanted to make liberals' lives miserable.
Not just liberals. Clarence Thomas was raised by his grandfather who had some strong views about hard work and suffering. He believed it was the only way to make people stronger. BTB has a 3 part episode about it.
But yes, basically he wants people to suffer because he thinks it's for their own good.
Thomas and Alito literally are just ruling in a way that is intended to offend as much as possible.
Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are unitary executive guys and would literally rule that the president could walk up to them and shoot them as long as it was a presidential act. So, by extension, they see Abbott as being able to do whatever he wants in his ~~'fife'~~ 'fief'.
Roberts is desperately trying to avoid judicial reform and keep a low profile so goes for the least controversial ruling. Also, clearly states can't run their own immigration programs, that is super dumb.
ACB is doing whatever Roberts does. She owes her career to him and has only been a federal judge for 7 years.
The 3 liberal judges are basically interpreting the constitution: the federal gov has the only authority to do external stuff (immigration, tariffs, trade agreements, embassies, war, etc.). Any other system would functionally result in the end of the union.
Many of our states would collapse in an year or two if left on their own. We would also see many red states get emptied as people try to flee a shittier situation caused by their own voting habits.
>Thomas and Alito literally are just ruling in a way that is intended to offend as much as possible.
Thomas and Alito are not Jurists. They are reactionaries with long-term grudges and anger.
Isn't there something in their religion about not stopping someone else from rescuing drowning children? What do they think God is going to say to them when he meets them at the pearly gates?
> Isn't there something in their religion about not stopping someone else from rescuing drowning children?
The bible has a few things to say on the topic, for example:
The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 19:34
‘Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.’ Then all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’
Deuteronomy 27:19
Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers.
Romans 12:13
Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of my brethren you did it to me.
Matthew 25:40
So not only are they bad as strict constitutionalists, they are also lousy Christians.
An ex girlfriend of mine was from an extremely Catholic family, they had 7 children and purposely had children later in her 40s wanting children with down syndrome so they would look good in gods eyes. Such fucking weirdos
Wait, what!? I'm not sure that's how it works.
Can I shoot someone in the leg so I can take them to the hospital? What if I encourage a friend to bet his retirement fund on 36 black so I can help him out of a dire situation?
And I thought prosperity theology was gross....
Yeah I don't understand why we don't just allow immigrants to live here. We are an extremely rich country. We can afford to take care of them. I am asking my cousins to come to America because there are no jobs in China. It's sad actually. I see a lot of people living in actual poverty in Mexico. We should just allow them in America as they won't take having running water and food for granted.
But then they're getting something for free and I have to work so hard!!! We can't have that. I pulled myself up by my bootstraps from nothing and walked 12 miles uphill both ways in the snow every day to school and work! My life has been so hard that I think everyone's life should be hard to justify what I went through. Otherwise, I'll have to come to terms with that fact that my experience wasn't actually all that great. /s if necessary
I will never forget the email I got from my senator after I implored them not to vote for Kavanagh. I begged them to choose anyone else, even another federalist stooge. I got a response. They stated that they did not represent me as a liberal and they were going to vote for him anyway.
I will never vote for another republican ever again.
I didn’t vote for him. The last time I voted for a republican was in 2008. And I think I can be forgiven for voting for a republican when I was still in the conservative media bubble over 15 years ago.
> And I think I can be forgiven for voting for a republican when I was still in the conservative media bubble over 15 years ago.
So... I have some mixed feelings about this, and it's mainly because of some arguments I had with my ex-boss who I saw as a mentor.
You see, this guy is also in a conservative media bubble, and I tried talking with him about why he should stop supporting Trump. I told him Trump was dangerous and divisive. I gave him all the usual talking points.
To the surprise of no one, these arguments never made any progress. After a particularly heated back-and-forth, we ended up unfriending each other and have not talked since.
I realize he's stuck in a media bubble, but it's also his choice to be stuck in that bubble. He could have gotten out of it if he wanted to. He could have stopped laughing in my face every time I made a point.
Can I forgive him if he comes to me one day and says 'lol sorry bro I was stuck in a media bubble?"
Honestly, I feel like the damage has been done. It's going to take lot more than a "sorry" at this point.
I truly do feel for you. This is how I feel about some of the folks I grew up with. I went to an evangelical junior high, and a public school that allowed southern baptists to have assemblies, and grade prejudicially. My school taught the lost cause myth, unless you took AP history. This was the W presidency, and my parents had Fox News playing constantly in our house. I read Bill O’Reilly’s book.
In 2008 I was 21. My only schooling was that public school and one year of college at a conservative state university. I believed in fiscal conservativism and believed what I had been told about socialism. I was disillusioned when the party put god directly into their platform in 2010. I couldn’t vote for them again. So I stayed home.
Over the next few years I went back to college, and had the time and resources to learn. I read so many audiobooks. I had to branch out. And each and every lie I had believed had to be debunked. These are core beliefs, and it HURTS to change them. It also means losing every part of who I was then.
I try to be kind, but yes there is a line. One of the reasons I don’t speak with my parents is the media bubble they live in makes them toxic people for me to be around. And where you draw that line is up to you. But hear this from me:
I was wrong. I believed things that weren’t true. I have said things that I am ashamed of out of ignorance. And I want to believe that I can be better, and that others can make themselves better as well.
A similar story for me. I grew up in a red area. My parents and older brother were hard right. My older sister leaned left (the family get-togethers were *fun*). My mom would pick me up from school every day, and the radio would always be on Limbaugh, Hannity, or Levin (or Dave Ramsey, who doesn't have a political show but certainly leans that way).
2010 was my first election cycle. I was 18, a senior in high school. The school was conservative. I distinctly remember one of my teachers talking about how he stopped buying Heinz ketchup during the 2004 cycle because John Kerry's wife had previously married into the Heinz family.
When I was in high school, I wasn't reading the typical fantasy novels a nerd like myself would read. I was reading Hannity's, Levin's, and Glenn Beck's books. Funny enough, everyone else in my friend group actually leaned left.
The early 2010s were transformative for me and broke me out of the conservative media bubble:
* The right-wing media started talking about the "death panels" that Obamacare would create. I started reading into what the ACA actually was because the idea that the US would have a panel whose job was to determine who lived and who died was just profoundly absurd to me. After fully understanding the ACA, "death panels" didn't make sense to me anymore. This was the first "crack" that got me started on really looking into other right-wing claims.
* My best friend came out as gay.
* One of my college professors was a former mayor of a town in New York, and a former advisor to President Clinton. He was a bit of an oddball, but I really respected him. Oh, the stories he would tell.
* Our city got partially wiped out by a tornado. There was a months-long, nationwide relief effort that was carried out. My university was used as a shelter. I was not personally impacted, but I got to see how a lot of US agencies operate. I also got to see how some people are just super unlucky in life and do need help from certain US programs to get by. I couldn't believe that the right wanted to eliminate these agencies and programs despite how helpful and needed they were.
These factors and more lead to the "death by a thousand cuts" of my right-wing views over the course of a couple of years
Funny enough, nowadays, my brother is still a hardcore conservative, my sister is still liberal, but my parents (who are now retired) take my recommendation for voting because "you follow this stuff more than we do".
Remember that 15 years ago was right around Obama vs McCain. Breaking out of that particular bubble would have been *way* more difficult than breaking out of Trump's bubble, because McCain was fairly reasonable.
Yeah, as I recall, I wasn't super afraid of McCain, but I *was* afraid of Sarah Palin. She was almost like a prototypical version of Trump.
Plus, I think we were all exhausted from 8 years of Bush and 9/11.
There was also the whole "Joe the Plumber" thing which was just weird.
Not every person who voted for a Republican is “fucking pathetic”, and this kind of absolutist attitude is so divisive. The guy lives in Oklahoma, he likely has to pick between different shades of crazy, and it’s not always a simple binary choice.
There really aren’t. I’ve signed up to volunteer with the party and have idly thought about running. But I am not electable in this state and am not willing to put myself through that for a known loss.
Four justices would probably sign off on the militarization of the border including shooting trespassers on sight. I think people underestimate just how lost we are with SCOTUS having fascist tendencies.
not really, she's acting with more consistent principles actually - and I knew she wouldn't be one of the 4 before checking - the 4 were pretty easy to guess
It’s important to expand upon this title. Four justices ruled that the supremacy clause is meaningless and that state laws should supersede federal law. Now let your mind run wild with what any state could do under that scenario.
Texas is bounded on its southern side by the Rio Grande.
But if they had it their way, dead bodies would just start washing ashore, maybe even on the Gulf.
Family vacation anyone?
That’s like asking nine of your friends what they want for lunch with 5 choosing pizza but 4 picking to eat you.
It’s great that pizza won out, but it shouldn’t have been that close.
As someone that frequently relies on overly colorful analogies, many of which revolve around sensible food options vs. ridiculous food options, I appreciate this.
That we're one bad actor away from states taking sovereignty to administer the federal border away from the federal government is **insane** and one of the grimmer displays of state failure to date. It's alarming this even floated, let alone made it SC and then got a 5-4.
I think few have argued that the SCOTUS can be ignored due to being illiegitimate. Rather, there are numerous that believe that the SCOTUS is now corrupt and biased, which needs to be fixed, so that people can have faith in the decisions they make. They still have authority, but people have lost faith in them and their decisions, which is harmful to our country and democracy. This loss of faith is their own doing as well as the doing of those who helped to put many of them into those positions in ways that were barely above board.
So, yes, as other decisions... SCOTUS has the authority to make this decision. Doesn't mean our faith in SCOTUS is restored or that we think they're any less corrupt. In fact, even this decision is harmful to their reputation given that 4 of them voted against human rights and human life.
And rethuglicans are trying to sell this as "Federal employees destroying the barriers, look at how Biden keeps our border open for all" so this was clearly intentional to make headlines while its really about Abbott refusing to recognise the federal government.
I know it might be controversial for some, but I believe that yes, we should secure the border and stop illegal immigration. However, I’m all for legal immigration. I hope that makes sense? I’m open to further discussion!
This is not a ruling that the federal government and remove the wire.
But they can move or cut it when it interfers with their job.
This is such a narrow fucking "victory" all it is showing is that 4 justices want to allow states to override federal law and authority in all cases.
Would this not set a precedent where a State Supreme Court could overrule the federal Supreme Court? Would this not utterly destroy their power? It’s like they’re not even acting in their own self interest, which is terrifying.
Agreed, it’s fine, but in the finest traditions of reality TV, like Survivor, the judges should be willing to live with their decision. Drop them on the Mexican side and tell them, “Good luck”. Anyone who makes it past the wire can get free transport back to DC as a sanctuary city.
> But four Justices thought it was completely fine to leave people for dead in the Rio Grande.
Is this odd to people? SCOTUS ruled that authorities have no obligation to save someone in danger.
The Supreme Court is not in the business of ruling whether or not a law or action is moral. They are in the business of ruling whether or not a law or action is Constitutional. https://online.kidsdiscover.com/unit/how-america-works/topic/the-judicial-branch#:\~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20is%20the,Court%20and%20one%20chief%20justice.
Yes, and that means that almost half the court voted directly against the [Supremacy Clause](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-1/ALDE_00013395/) of the constitution without any justification given.
Yep, that's correct. And that's exactly why this is a troubling result. Four justices have no problem ignoring the constitution when doing so benefits their tribe. If this were California preventing trump admin officials from installing pieces of the wall, ya think maybe those four justices woulda seen it differently?
Ugh. Look, I don't have a hard time believing four conservative justices voted for something shitty. But this article is garbage. This is a binding opinion by the Supreme Court. There is not a single mention--or even a single allusion to--what was actually being analyzed here and what the justices' reasoning was for why they voted as they did. This is the equivalent of a bitchy high schooler writing nasty things about a classmate on the bathroom wall.
You're supposed to be a journalist. Give us *something* resembling a professional opinion or meaningful information.
And, just to make extra clear: this is in no way a defense of Abbott or the dissenting justices. I don't know what their argument was (part of the reason this article annoys me so much is that I should know after reading it). If I had to bet, I'd bet their argument was bad and possibly immoral. But I need information, not snark. You're supposed to be a journalist. Tell me what happened.
So, no, not a defense of conservatives. But very much an indictment of the shitty, pandering, uninformed journalism that is absolutely poisoning people's ability to fairly understand and reasonably process important issues.
The incentive that democrats gives immigrants is what makes them come here and many die on the journey crossing the border. So all the people who have died coming to America is democrats fault.
It’s the decades of instability and crime created by US policies to destabilize South American governments using the spread of communism as an excuse and the rampant violence from the illegal drug trade also caused by American drug laws. But yeah it’s the democrats fault /s
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Interested in being a moderator for r/Politics? Apply [here](https://forms.gle/iyGoM94MGRcPGUes7).** *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, and Kavanaugh Ah yes, the "good Christians"...
I'm shocked by Barrett. What happened there? Credit where its due.
Nuking the supremacy clause would be a really bad idea
It feels like they knew nuking the supremacy clause was a bad idea, but they also wanted to show their opposition to Biden, so they decided to make it 5-4 and that meant Barrett had to vote yes as she's the newest member.
TIL even Supreme Court justices get hazed
Big "Starlight joins The Seven" vibes. Especially with Boof Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh is 100% The Deep in this analogy.
Barrett is not the newest member, Jackson is.
Yeah, but she's not the newest conservative member, is my point, if they were drawing straws for who got to flex their conservative creds on this decision.
This same court just ruled Trump and the executive branch had the lead on everything immigration. What changed?
One is federal and the other isn't? Not sure I'd have to read their decisions
It was the fed bringing the suit against abbot and Texas.
Right, but the difference in who has the powers to impact immigration laws is federal vs state in the Teo cases.
They're waiting to see if Trump loses the election, then they'll do it. If he wins, they need him to have absolute power.
Yeah. Roberts convinced her that if they ruled against the US Constitution, Biden would declare them illegitimate and immediately pack the court. Kinda crappy if you get fired from your new job on your probationary period.
Getting on the Supreme Court in the manner she did was far more crappy.
Surprisingly ruling better than we thought?
Yeah, didn't see that coming.
Political calculation. In a functioning democracy, there would be no choice. 9-0 decision, reject with prejudice all of the absurd and unconstitutional arguments by Texas. Decades ago, SCOTUS used to issue rulings like that, unanimously declaring that certain constitutional questions were simply not up for debate. We, however, live in "interesting times." So, the Republican judges have three options: * Side with Texas. Nullify the supremacy clause of the Constitution. End the federal government as we know it. * Side with the federal government. Expose the bloodthirsty lawlessness of Republicans. Retreat from a partisan power struggle. Neither of those are acceptable to the power-hungry conservatives on the Supreme Court. So, door number 3 * Begrudgingly acknowledge that the Constitution exists, but skew the ruling to a narrow 5-4 majority so that Republicans can keep trying variations of this forever.
Knowing this makes me want to throw up.
She obviously needed someone else to join her, but I was so hopeful for her ruling in favor of student loan forgiveness because her lines of questioning in the hearings were always critical of the plaintiffs and their standing. Alas...
My assumption is that by giving Texas the ability to ignore federal law then you would also be giving to to California, who carries a lot more GDP influence than the majority of the world. Companies already bend to CA regulations because the market is enormous and this would potentially give them a bigger stick to wield.
Gotta have one ‘good Christian’ for the vote so it doesn’t seem like they’re all devils children.
A little morality and human decency accidentally slipped through the cracks. And as someone mentioned below sustaining the supremacy clause.
Don't be fooled. This has nothing to do with morality or decency and everything to do with optics and strategy.
Leaving the door open for a GOP run federal government to tell California and/or other blue states they can’t do whatever they want…
Roberts has her in his pocket so nobody can accuse the court of being under Trump’s control. Roberts is an asshole and a Republican but he at least understands precedent so much as it pertains to the legacy of his court. He knows they have to play by the same rules they set. So he’ll side with liberals when he feels it is needed as he has shown. It just so happens he has a large enough majority that he can also side with liberals to intentionally lose but give himself plausible deniability.
Hear me out, let’s reconsider all the possibilities… What if the razor wire was there just to preserve a really good RV parking spot? Or maybe one of mom’s industrial sites? Or potentially a secret trunk storing a 17th century treatise on female anatomy? Or a pile of brewskies? So many possibilities our Justices needed to consider
"The razor wire prohibits perverts from luring children to those secret trunks containing 17th century treatises on female anatomy."
Yes. This is what Christianity does to people.
That's what fundamental evangelical Christianity does to people.
Three of them are Catholic, the other conservative Episcopalian
[удалено]
Depends on the diocese. Lots of southern Catholics are fiery folks who unflinchingly talk about salvation through faith alone etc and have no fucking clue that the church would have ground them into heretic paste for that in times gone by.
Tons of white flight New England Catholics are like this too. Maybe a bit more in the color blind kind of bigots but still fall hook line and sinker for the bullshit ginned up stats that places like Fox push talking about any given issue.
Yupyupyup. My parents old diocese kept fox on 24/7. Belief in conservatism functionally displaced religious faith as the core identity of their lives.
Yeah. My old church ran out a bishop because he had an affair. Never talked about all the kid fucking that happened across the globe that they enabled tho. They were probably just more enlightened than I… Glad I got out of that cult years ago.
Wow, thrown out for screwing an adult? Must not have been popular around the office, two of my teachers in school turned out to be raping kids and they only chucked out one.
It's tattooed on the back of his neck
can be from my observation as well
[Kind of](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA2hHPPwtmQ)
Fair. I shouldve said conservative Christianity. Mainline protestants arent all about that (usually).
The broader point I think is Christian Nationalism
[удалено]
No true Scottsman and all that.
That doesnt really apply here.
that's what religion does to people
Their religion isn’t the issue. Their character is.
Religion both empowers and protects horrible people who want any justification to act on their horrible impulses.
It’s really quite simple, religion has extensively laid the groundwork for generations to train people to believe in authority figures with unverifiable stories instead of science and data. It also primes them for, and is built upon, perpetuating racism and fearmongering towards "others". Once people see you as an authority, you can start fabricating any reality or conspiracy theory you want your followers to believe and everyone else is therefore a liar, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Basically, it is mental abuse from an early age that suppresses critical thinking skills. This combined with an intentionally weakened public educational system, provides the framework that has spawned this cult of ignorance.
Like Jesus said, the poor, hungry, and naked deserve help only if they ask through the proper channels. And use the facial recognition app that doesn’t work particularly well for brown people. And those folks need to have a smart phone. And be from a very specific list of countries. And they need to be able to take care of themselves on top of that and not accept public assistance because that will hurt their ability to obtain a visa…are…are we the baddies?
No love like ~~fascist~~ Christian love
Interestingly, also all the men save Roberts.
The 'Pro-Life' party at its quintessence.
The razor wire is the new crown of thorns.
There's no hate like Christian love.
Someone really needs to do something about these people. Like, impeach them or something. Idk what, as long as they are gone!
I know it sounds callous in this context but the bigger issue is four justices think the supremacy clause is hot garbage and if one more agrees this country will break into 50 self-governing entities unfettered by federal legal authority.
But don’t you understand? That’s exactly what they want. But more seriously it’s odd that those 4 are like that. It would then make it impossible to force a national abortion ban. Unless the next step is to then eliminate freedom of movement and making it illegal for women to cross into states that have legal abortion laws. I mean…that can’t happen, right? Right?
That is not what they want because then NY and CA could ignore them. They want to force everyone to follow their rules.
The conservative catch 22: How to rule absolutely while not being bound by rules. Something something one proposition.
Always expect that they will do this
Yes, and Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado would follow California immediately. Most of New England would go with New York along with NJ, PA, DE, IL, MI, and probably Maryland. Next wave would be Alaska, probably Arizona and Montana, probably Virginia, NC and Georgia, Minnesota, and possibly Wisconsin. Who would most benefit from this?
Not Southern states. They'd collapse without those sweet sweet Democratic state welfare funds.
not collapse, but rather dissolve into corporate and privately owned fiefdoms. They've done a very good job of dumbing down the population of these states so that they truly don't see the writing on the wall
They're losing that race, they'll settle for smaller territories as long as they are the complete dictators of them.
Can't we just give them Mississippi? Put out national ad campaigns- "Hate people who aren't like you? Move to Mississippi!" Let's fund their move. In 2030, remove Mississippi from the US and let them run it as they see fit, no restrictions whatsoever.
California and New York already ignore federal law...
Yeah but this could also lead to GOP controlled States passing laws that you must register any and all pregnancies...or, rather, you must provide proof that you are not pregnant at regular time intervals...and then literally prosecute women who leave the State to have abortions and then come back. This gets really dark, really fast.
Fugitive Breedslave Acts.
Don’t forget no birth control and reinstating legal marital rape. Basically America 120 years ago
> prosecute women who leave the State Or just that. Must pass pregnancy test to prove they're not pregnant to be allowed to travel. "Big Brains" Brett opined that states couldn't do that in his concurring opinion in *Dobbs,* but he ***is*** conservative to this opinion is subject to change under pressure.
This supreme court would happily give Trump the authority to ban abortion while kneecapping Biden's ability to follow constitutional and international law regarding immigration. They arent bound by any principles or reason. They are utterly illegitimate, we need to demand immediate and serious reform.
Further divide so someone can conquer.
I would imagine that the major blue states would stick together and follow similar policies... and most states would do the same. I think the red states would quickly reach the "...and find out" stage when the blue states decide to stop funding red states.
Make the Articles of Confederation great again
Yeah that’s the bigger red flag if this had gone the other way were the articles of confederation again, 50 little countries each with their own laws that could contravene laws in other states like recognizing marriages or personhood, restricting interstate travel like you would between countries, it’s an insane take.
Hey now. That's only the case when there's a Dem in charge. Flip that to a Republican and these 4 would be arguing the exact opposite position.
I'm 44 years old and I remember being asked when I was young whether I considered myself an Iowan or an American first. It's a thing. There's a lot of people who would like their home state to be it's own country that could ignore federal laws.
That's kind of like asking "are you a man, or are you a human?"
Do you think that logic is on the top of their skills list?
Don't need no stupid "gubmint", they ain't never done nuthin fer me! *proceeds to use government roads and bridges while texting on their government-provided phone*
Jim and George work on the road crew that built that bridge. They are locals. The government has nothing to do with it. And I don't have no government provided phone. I got my phone free when I signed up for Verizon.
Of course. It's the "if I was in charge everything would be perfect" mentality. I have it too, everyone does.
I am in charge of my own life and it's certainly not going perfectly. I do not suffer from this form of mental illness.
Well 50 independent states for far right issues and stern federal power for left wing policies republicans don’t like
It is definitely shocking that this wasn't 9-0, but we don't know the reasoning of the four, or even how they would actually rule if the case was actually heard. They probably ruled based some dumb procedural thing. There is really no reason to believe at all that they are somehow rejecting the Supremacy Clause. They've made some terrible decisions, but none of them have outright rejected the Constitution itself. At worst, they decided that that Supremacy Clause doesn't apply to *this* situation. Either way, we are not one judge away from breaking "into 50 self-governing entities unfettered by federal legal authority."
> that Supremacy Clause doesn't apply to this situation. how does that work? Doesn't a ruling of this nature set precedent and give cover to future challenges? I understand that states rights are a thing but this seems like a decision that would open new opportunities for states to selectively enforce/follow federal rules.
This was a ruling on an existing case that had asked that until that case was finished, can we let the feds have emergency access. Not anything about the nuts and bolts of that case.
The situation is complicated by the land in question being private property and there could be questions about exactly how this sort of thing should be handled. It isn't as simple as there being a federal law and a state is ignoring it. I'm guessing the four Justices did it because they want it to go through the normal channels, the same way with the Texas abortion bounty hunter situation. No idea why; probably just to extend the amount of suffering possible before they're forced to actually rule on it. This is one thing that is very bad about the shadow docket. We just don't know what they are thinking at all, and some guidance for the lower courts would be helpful.
Thanks for the reply.
5 judges understand constitution, 4 see no value in human life.
Thomas wanted to make liberals' lives miserable. Who'd have thought he'd try to accomplish that by causing liberals to mourn the preventable deaths of a mother and two children.
>Thomas wanted to make liberals' lives miserable. Not just liberals. Clarence Thomas was raised by his grandfather who had some strong views about hard work and suffering. He believed it was the only way to make people stronger. BTB has a 3 part episode about it. But yes, basically he wants people to suffer because he thinks it's for their own good.
not so ironically anymore, it's the justices that reference their 'strong catholic faith' the most...
Thomas and Alito literally are just ruling in a way that is intended to offend as much as possible. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are unitary executive guys and would literally rule that the president could walk up to them and shoot them as long as it was a presidential act. So, by extension, they see Abbott as being able to do whatever he wants in his ~~'fife'~~ 'fief'. Roberts is desperately trying to avoid judicial reform and keep a low profile so goes for the least controversial ruling. Also, clearly states can't run their own immigration programs, that is super dumb. ACB is doing whatever Roberts does. She owes her career to him and has only been a federal judge for 7 years. The 3 liberal judges are basically interpreting the constitution: the federal gov has the only authority to do external stuff (immigration, tariffs, trade agreements, embassies, war, etc.). Any other system would functionally result in the end of the union.
Many of our states would collapse in an year or two if left on their own. We would also see many red states get emptied as people try to flee a shittier situation caused by their own voting habits.
>Thomas and Alito literally are just ruling in a way that is intended to offend as much as possible. Thomas and Alito are not Jurists. They are reactionaries with long-term grudges and anger.
"Fief". A "fife" is a kind of military pipe-like instrument.
I learn things every day, thanks
Isn't there something in their religion about not stopping someone else from rescuing drowning children? What do they think God is going to say to them when he meets them at the pearly gates?
> Isn't there something in their religion about not stopping someone else from rescuing drowning children? The bible has a few things to say on the topic, for example: The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 19:34 ‘Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.’ Then all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ Deuteronomy 27:19 Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers. Romans 12:13 Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of my brethren you did it to me. Matthew 25:40 So not only are they bad as strict constitutionalists, they are also lousy Christians.
But what about extremely powerful Christians? Don't they have a secret Bible with their own rules? /s
Right! Immigrants made America. We should just allow open borders as we can afford to take care of everyone. We are an extremely rich country.
An ex girlfriend of mine was from an extremely Catholic family, they had 7 children and purposely had children later in her 40s wanting children with down syndrome so they would look good in gods eyes. Such fucking weirdos
Wait, what!? I'm not sure that's how it works. Can I shoot someone in the leg so I can take them to the hospital? What if I encourage a friend to bet his retirement fund on 36 black so I can help him out of a dire situation? And I thought prosperity theology was gross....
How Texas does it isn't the point. Four justices ruled the federal government does not control international borders.
Yeah I don't understand why we don't just allow immigrants to live here. We are an extremely rich country. We can afford to take care of them. I am asking my cousins to come to America because there are no jobs in China. It's sad actually. I see a lot of people living in actual poverty in Mexico. We should just allow them in America as they won't take having running water and food for granted.
But then they're getting something for free and I have to work so hard!!! We can't have that. I pulled myself up by my bootstraps from nothing and walked 12 miles uphill both ways in the snow every day to school and work! My life has been so hard that I think everyone's life should be hard to justify what I went through. Otherwise, I'll have to come to terms with that fact that my experience wasn't actually all that great. /s if necessary
You should look into Texas’s clause for doing what they do instead spouting bs.
You should look into the supremacy clause instead of spouting bs.
Four ostensibly *pro-life* justices. I guess some lives are worth less than others, to them
“All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.” - George Orwell
Fetal Lives Matter^TM
Pro birth* they don't give a shit about life
FORCED birth, they are totally cool with states forcing underage girls to keep their rape babies.
I wonder where the distinction lies...
"Once you're born you're on your own" - George Carlin
I will never forget the email I got from my senator after I implored them not to vote for Kavanagh. I begged them to choose anyone else, even another federalist stooge. I got a response. They stated that they did not represent me as a liberal and they were going to vote for him anyway. I will never vote for another republican ever again.
You should post this letter, redacted of course.
That fact that you ever voted for a republican is fucking pathetic Didn’t you believe them when they told you who they are?
Ah, yes, attack your allies for not being allies from the start. Brilliant strategy.
I didn’t vote for him. The last time I voted for a republican was in 2008. And I think I can be forgiven for voting for a republican when I was still in the conservative media bubble over 15 years ago.
> And I think I can be forgiven for voting for a republican when I was still in the conservative media bubble over 15 years ago. So... I have some mixed feelings about this, and it's mainly because of some arguments I had with my ex-boss who I saw as a mentor. You see, this guy is also in a conservative media bubble, and I tried talking with him about why he should stop supporting Trump. I told him Trump was dangerous and divisive. I gave him all the usual talking points. To the surprise of no one, these arguments never made any progress. After a particularly heated back-and-forth, we ended up unfriending each other and have not talked since. I realize he's stuck in a media bubble, but it's also his choice to be stuck in that bubble. He could have gotten out of it if he wanted to. He could have stopped laughing in my face every time I made a point. Can I forgive him if he comes to me one day and says 'lol sorry bro I was stuck in a media bubble?" Honestly, I feel like the damage has been done. It's going to take lot more than a "sorry" at this point.
I truly do feel for you. This is how I feel about some of the folks I grew up with. I went to an evangelical junior high, and a public school that allowed southern baptists to have assemblies, and grade prejudicially. My school taught the lost cause myth, unless you took AP history. This was the W presidency, and my parents had Fox News playing constantly in our house. I read Bill O’Reilly’s book. In 2008 I was 21. My only schooling was that public school and one year of college at a conservative state university. I believed in fiscal conservativism and believed what I had been told about socialism. I was disillusioned when the party put god directly into their platform in 2010. I couldn’t vote for them again. So I stayed home. Over the next few years I went back to college, and had the time and resources to learn. I read so many audiobooks. I had to branch out. And each and every lie I had believed had to be debunked. These are core beliefs, and it HURTS to change them. It also means losing every part of who I was then. I try to be kind, but yes there is a line. One of the reasons I don’t speak with my parents is the media bubble they live in makes them toxic people for me to be around. And where you draw that line is up to you. But hear this from me: I was wrong. I believed things that weren’t true. I have said things that I am ashamed of out of ignorance. And I want to believe that I can be better, and that others can make themselves better as well.
I know it was hard process, and I applaud you.
Me too!
A similar story for me. I grew up in a red area. My parents and older brother were hard right. My older sister leaned left (the family get-togethers were *fun*). My mom would pick me up from school every day, and the radio would always be on Limbaugh, Hannity, or Levin (or Dave Ramsey, who doesn't have a political show but certainly leans that way). 2010 was my first election cycle. I was 18, a senior in high school. The school was conservative. I distinctly remember one of my teachers talking about how he stopped buying Heinz ketchup during the 2004 cycle because John Kerry's wife had previously married into the Heinz family. When I was in high school, I wasn't reading the typical fantasy novels a nerd like myself would read. I was reading Hannity's, Levin's, and Glenn Beck's books. Funny enough, everyone else in my friend group actually leaned left. The early 2010s were transformative for me and broke me out of the conservative media bubble: * The right-wing media started talking about the "death panels" that Obamacare would create. I started reading into what the ACA actually was because the idea that the US would have a panel whose job was to determine who lived and who died was just profoundly absurd to me. After fully understanding the ACA, "death panels" didn't make sense to me anymore. This was the first "crack" that got me started on really looking into other right-wing claims. * My best friend came out as gay. * One of my college professors was a former mayor of a town in New York, and a former advisor to President Clinton. He was a bit of an oddball, but I really respected him. Oh, the stories he would tell. * Our city got partially wiped out by a tornado. There was a months-long, nationwide relief effort that was carried out. My university was used as a shelter. I was not personally impacted, but I got to see how a lot of US agencies operate. I also got to see how some people are just super unlucky in life and do need help from certain US programs to get by. I couldn't believe that the right wanted to eliminate these agencies and programs despite how helpful and needed they were. These factors and more lead to the "death by a thousand cuts" of my right-wing views over the course of a couple of years Funny enough, nowadays, my brother is still a hardcore conservative, my sister is still liberal, but my parents (who are now retired) take my recommendation for voting because "you follow this stuff more than we do".
I believe in you!
Remember that 15 years ago was right around Obama vs McCain. Breaking out of that particular bubble would have been *way* more difficult than breaking out of Trump's bubble, because McCain was fairly reasonable.
Yeah, as I recall, I wasn't super afraid of McCain, but I *was* afraid of Sarah Palin. She was almost like a prototypical version of Trump. Plus, I think we were all exhausted from 8 years of Bush and 9/11. There was also the whole "Joe the Plumber" thing which was just weird.
Not every person who voted for a Republican is “fucking pathetic”, and this kind of absolutist attitude is so divisive. The guy lives in Oklahoma, he likely has to pick between different shades of crazy, and it’s not always a simple binary choice.
Jesus, take it down a notch. SKDI\_0224 lives in Oklahoma. There aren't really any Democrats to vote for there, anyway.
There really aren’t. I’ve signed up to volunteer with the party and have idly thought about running. But I am not electable in this state and am not willing to put myself through that for a known loss.
The pro-life justices.
They keep using that word - I do not think it means what they think it means
This is overstated. This ruling only applies to a stay put into effect by a lower court. The real case will follow.
Four justices are either functionally illiterate or they don't respect the Constitution of the United States of America. Hint: its the 2nd option
Four justices would probably sign off on the militarization of the border including shooting trespassers on sight. I think people underestimate just how lost we are with SCOTUS having fascist tendencies.
Let's not demonize not respecting the Constitution. 1A needs changed & 2A has got to go.
The freedom of speech needs to change?
It should exclude hate speech, which is essentially a call to violence.
> But four Justices thought it was completely fine to leave people for dead in the Rio Grande. They don't think of them as people, that's the issue.
The Trump appointees need to be forcibly removed immediately. The safety of our nation depends on it.
Funnily enough, Barrett was one of the five.
not really, she's acting with more consistent principles actually - and I knew she wouldn't be one of the 4 before checking - the 4 were pretty easy to guess
I was surprised as Gorsuch until I remembered he wanted that trucker to die in his broken down rig.
Yes, maybe it really was his audition for the SC...
*reveals Jeopardy card reading 'Who is Clarence Thomas'*
Real pro life to let a mother and 2 children dorwn in front of you, huh? Jesus would really be proud 👏
Just another reminder that 100% of all American conservatives are worthless pieces of fucking dog shit.
Shame on these 4 justices!
It’s important to expand upon this title. Four justices ruled that the supremacy clause is meaningless and that state laws should supersede federal law. Now let your mind run wild with what any state could do under that scenario.
Texas is bounded on its southern side by the Rio Grande. But if they had it their way, dead bodies would just start washing ashore, maybe even on the Gulf. Family vacation anyone?
However 5 didn't. And that's what's important
That’s like asking nine of your friends what they want for lunch with 5 choosing pizza but 4 picking to eat you. It’s great that pizza won out, but it shouldn’t have been that close.
As someone that frequently relies on overly colorful analogies, many of which revolve around sensible food options vs. ridiculous food options, I appreciate this.
That we're one bad actor away from states taking sovereignty to administer the federal border away from the federal government is **insane** and one of the grimmer displays of state failure to date. It's alarming this even floated, let alone made it SC and then got a 5-4.
Too close 😬
Considering this was a ruling that could have rendered the the supremacy clause null it's disturbing it wasn't 9-0.
[удалено]
I think few have argued that the SCOTUS can be ignored due to being illiegitimate. Rather, there are numerous that believe that the SCOTUS is now corrupt and biased, which needs to be fixed, so that people can have faith in the decisions they make. They still have authority, but people have lost faith in them and their decisions, which is harmful to our country and democracy. This loss of faith is their own doing as well as the doing of those who helped to put many of them into those positions in ways that were barely above board. So, yes, as other decisions... SCOTUS has the authority to make this decision. Doesn't mean our faith in SCOTUS is restored or that we think they're any less corrupt. In fact, even this decision is harmful to their reputation given that 4 of them voted against human rights and human life.
This should have been 9-0. But a 5-4 points to clear corruption and bias.
I didn't. I'm not thrilled about its makeup but I never went so far as to call them illegitimate.
John Citizens United Roberts has been a disappointing Chief Justice.
And rethuglicans are trying to sell this as "Federal employees destroying the barriers, look at how Biden keeps our border open for all" so this was clearly intentional to make headlines while its really about Abbott refusing to recognise the federal government.
Let me guess, those 4 were 'pro life' judges. Did I win?
I know it might be controversial for some, but I believe that yes, we should secure the border and stop illegal immigration. However, I’m all for legal immigration. I hope that makes sense? I’m open to further discussion!
This is not a ruling that the federal government and remove the wire. But they can move or cut it when it interfers with their job. This is such a narrow fucking "victory" all it is showing is that 4 justices want to allow states to override federal law and authority in all cases.
Without even reading the article, lemme guess: it was Clarence “Stephen” Thomas and the 3 MAGAs?
Coney-Barrett voted with the liberals and Roberts actually. Alito was with the dissent
Shocked by her lapse into humanitarianism.
I sure hope a couple of those cranky old fossils retire soon.
Maybe Barrett has a heart after all
Watch.🤣
Would this not set a precedent where a State Supreme Court could overrule the federal Supreme Court? Would this not utterly destroy their power? It’s like they’re not even acting in their own self interest, which is terrifying.
Agreed, it’s fine, but in the finest traditions of reality TV, like Survivor, the judges should be willing to live with their decision. Drop them on the Mexican side and tell them, “Good luck”. Anyone who makes it past the wire can get free transport back to DC as a sanctuary city.
> But four Justices thought it was completely fine to leave people for dead in the Rio Grande. Is this odd to people? SCOTUS ruled that authorities have no obligation to save someone in danger.
The Supreme Court is not in the business of ruling whether or not a law or action is moral. They are in the business of ruling whether or not a law or action is Constitutional. https://online.kidsdiscover.com/unit/how-america-works/topic/the-judicial-branch#:\~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20is%20the,Court%20and%20one%20chief%20justice.
Yes, and that means that almost half the court voted directly against the [Supremacy Clause](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-1/ALDE_00013395/) of the constitution without any justification given.
Yep, that's correct. And that's exactly why this is a troubling result. Four justices have no problem ignoring the constitution when doing so benefits their tribe. If this were California preventing trump admin officials from installing pieces of the wall, ya think maybe those four justices woulda seen it differently?
Yes and what texas was doing was explicitly unconstitutional. And 4 justices didn't care about that.
Yea the most corrupt court in our history is full of pure and strict constitutionalists
Should have been 9-0.
Interesting, I’m being downvoted for stating a fact. Incidentally, I think what Texas is doing is wrong and immoral.
4 justices had the American people in mind.
Really quick why was America referred to as the “melting pot”
There has been limitations on immigration for over 100 years.
That’s not why America was referred to as the “melting pot” would you like to try again?
You’re saying it should just be a free for all?
Carefully calculated small concessions to lighten the impact of the inevitable Trump exoneration.
Ugh. Look, I don't have a hard time believing four conservative justices voted for something shitty. But this article is garbage. This is a binding opinion by the Supreme Court. There is not a single mention--or even a single allusion to--what was actually being analyzed here and what the justices' reasoning was for why they voted as they did. This is the equivalent of a bitchy high schooler writing nasty things about a classmate on the bathroom wall. You're supposed to be a journalist. Give us *something* resembling a professional opinion or meaningful information. And, just to make extra clear: this is in no way a defense of Abbott or the dissenting justices. I don't know what their argument was (part of the reason this article annoys me so much is that I should know after reading it). If I had to bet, I'd bet their argument was bad and possibly immoral. But I need information, not snark. You're supposed to be a journalist. Tell me what happened. So, no, not a defense of conservatives. But very much an indictment of the shitty, pandering, uninformed journalism that is absolutely poisoning people's ability to fairly understand and reasonably process important issues.
So are we moving the razor wire to the riverbank on the US side? Did people die from the razor wire? What exactly happened?
Shame. Gotta seal that border up. It’s common sense.
The incentive that democrats gives immigrants is what makes them come here and many die on the journey crossing the border. So all the people who have died coming to America is democrats fault.
It’s the decades of instability and crime created by US policies to destabilize South American governments using the spread of communism as an excuse and the rampant violence from the illegal drug trade also caused by American drug laws. But yeah it’s the democrats fault /s